Is the NFL ever going to use logic with its replay rules?

[UMP45]

Originally Posted by hbk314

You know the point of a forum is to discuss things?

I honestly appreciate the officials perspective and feel you guys here have a much better handle on things than your typical fan you'll see online.

While I may debate certain points here, you at least have to acknowledge that my points are logical. I'm not just debating for the sake of debating.

As a baseball umpire, who knows nothing about officiating football, I have read some of your posts and this is what I take from them.One, you are not an official. Two, this means you have a VERY limited knowledge of what they do. Three, you are a coach.Therefore you by nature biased against officials. And four, you know enough to be dangerous. In baseball we have a saying "know the rule, know how to apply the rule, and know the spirit or intent of the rule". Oh as far as "logic" goes I think you argue just to hear your head rattle!

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by UMP45

As a baseball umpire, who knows nothing about officiating football, I have read some of your posts and this is what I take from them.One, you are not an official. Two, this means you have a VERY limited knowledge of what they do. Three, you are a coach.Therefore you by nature biased against officials. And four, you know enough to be dangerous. In baseball we have a saying "know the rule, know how to apply the rule, and know the spirit or intent of the rule". Oh as far as "logic" goes I think you argue just to hear your head rattle!

I'm also a baseball umpire.

I've stated I don't officiate football, but I think I have a better understanding of the game than a lot of fans, but not to the level of an experienced official.

I'm certainly not a coach.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the spirit of the rule line.

This is a play that clearly could have been fixed with replay. It doesn't make sense that it couldn't be challenged. It's not going to tack a bunch of time on allowing a play such as this to be challenged. If it's a loose ball in a pile of bodies, there's not going to be evidence to overturn, so it likely won't be challenged unless the coach wants to lose a timeout.

I've given a well-thought-out argument for why this play and other currently not reviewable plays should be reviewable. To put it simply: There's either evidence to overturn or there's not.

Nobody's really given me a good reason as to why it shouldn't be.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Nobody's really given me a good reason as to why it shouldn't be.

Well that is subjective right? It does not mean you have accepted the reasons, which in fact are true.

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that is subjective right? It does not mean you have accepted the reasons, which in fact are true.

Peace

Doesn't make them good reasons.

Are you honestly telling me you don't think that play should be reviewable?

[Raymond]

No one here works for the NFL, so your complaints will never be satisfied here. Try Tweeting Blandino.

Tomlin should have challenged that Clark was down by contact, that is reviewable.

Why aren't balls and strikes reviewable?

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No one here works for the NFL, so your complaints will never be satisfied here. Try Tweeting Blandino.

Tomlin should have challenged that Clark was down by contact, that is reviewable.

Why aren't balls and strikes reviewable?

No. That wouldn't have been reviewable since the officials ruled he didn't have possession.